According to the Congressional Budget Office, the last-minute fiscal cliff deal reached by congressional leaders and President Barack Obama cuts only $15 billion in spending while increasing tax revenues by $620 billion—a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts. When Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush increased taxes in return for spending cuts—cuts that never ultimately came—they did so at ratios of 1:3 and 1:2. “In 1982, President Reagan was promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes,” Americans for Tax Reform says of those two incidents. “The tax hikes went through, but the spending cuts did not materialize. President Reagan later said that signing onto this deal was the biggest mistake of his presidency. “In 1990, President George H.W. Bush agreed to $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. The tax hikes went through, and we are still paying them today. Not a single penny of the promised spending cuts actually happened.”

That’s right, kids. The Democrat Party is MORE THAN four times more “obstructionist” than the Republicans even by the Democrats own incredibly demagogic standard. They insisted upon and were willing to send America off the cliff to get a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts.

And if you are a Democrat, you are a quintessential, abject hypocrite by definition. Because liberalism equals “hypocrisy,” and you cannot even possibly be a liberal without walking through the lie that is your life as a massive hypocrite.

The bottom line is this: the liberal establishment thought it was insane that Republicans would not believe their lies again and fall into the new trap of their empty rhetoric, but 41:1 going the opposite direction – more than four times more insane by any definition of insantiy, mind you – is not insane at all.

You cannot negotiate with Democrats because history has proven over and over again that Democrats are dishonest liars. It’s the “Lucy and the football thing” that plays out over and over again. Only every time the Democrats yank away the football after promising that this time they’re really hold it, America gets weaker and closer to complete financial collapse.

Democrats bait and switch with rhetoric all the damn time. The Democrat Party is the party that dishonestly says it is “investing” money rather than be honest enough to admit they’re spending it, such that I could “invest” in a Ferrari and three prostitutes for the weekend and pat myself on the back for “investing.” Let me ask you something: if you’re completely broke, but decide to go shopping for clothes anyway, and you tell yourself that you’re going to spend $1,000 on your credit card, but instead “only” end up spending $985, did you “cut” your spending? No, you dumbass; you went nuts and spent $985 you shouldn’t have spent; you didn’t “cut” anything. Your debts went UP, not down, you big giant dumbass. That’s the game Democrats play year after year with their dishonest promises of “spending cuts.” They have NEVERcut spending in their deplorable lives; instead, they try to tell us that if they projected their out-of-control spending by 10 percent a year but they only increase their spending beyond previous spending by say 9%, that they somehow “cut” spending.

Do you know what an actual “spending cut” would look like, you who aren’t so evil and blind that you voted for Obama? It would look like the US budget getting smaller and smaller rather than bigger and bigger. It would look like the government NOT having trillion-plus dollar deficits every single year of Obama’s God damn America presidency, that’s what it would look like.

And that doesn’t include the $500 billion financial black hole of megadeath that Democrats have imposed through their evil relationship with unions just on California alone. If you add up the debt of blue states in unfunded liabilities being handed out to unions, and America is a headless chicken walking.

41:1. From the party that mocked the other side for refusing to consider 10:1 after being repeatedly lied to by the party that just demanded 41:1 or else they’d destroy America.

Let me simply state the truth: Democrats are bad people. They are bad people who feel entitled to other people’s money. They are bad people who simply do not believe in any kind of personal responsibility. They are bad people who trust in massive human government while they mock those who put their trust in God. They are bad people who at the very least are forcing the next generation to shoulder an impossible burden while they spend that generation’s wages right now. And ultimately, they are bad people who either want our children to starve and our old people to die of medical abandonment, or who are simply so demon-possessed and so deranged that they simply cannot consider the obvious financial consequences of their incredibly reckless and immoral actions. Because that is what is going to happen due to their wicked policies when America collapses due to their wicked spending.

America has become a truly sick and depraved culture, and we are about to go the way of the Dodo bird.

Why isn’t America mentioned in the Bible? Because when it mattered the most (NOW!), you were too damned depraved and too damn wicked to do the right thing. And by the time the Antichrist comes, we won’t be able to do anything but worship him even more than we worship Obama and take his damn mark so we can burn in hell for a trillion times a trillion-trillion-trillion millennia.

Why does the Antichrist come according to the Book of Revelation? You ought to know, Democrats; because you just voted to not only elect but re-elect his useful idiot.

Hal Lindsey once famously popularized the phrase, “the Great Snatch” to describe the soon-coming Rapture of all true Christian believers. I’ve been calling it “the Great Bailout,” because I am hoping that Jesus is going to bail Christians out of the mess that secular humanist Democrats have created before we experience the consequences of their massive – and massively godless – disaster.

The most criminally irresponsible Senate (which just happens to have been controlled by Democrats the entire time) has not passed a budget since April 23, 2009. That’s 1,338 days, which is edging up to the four year mark since the Democrats in the United States Senate fulfilled their constitutionally mandated duty. That’s nearly the entire Obama presidency up to this point. The most fundamental obligation of any legislative body is to pass a budget. But Democrats couldn’t care less about the Constituton or their basic duty; a budget would expose them for the liars they are. Democrats will accept ZERO responsibility for their demon-possessed spending and will not allow ANY reduction in spending as America sails into bankruptcy. Has anyone on the left ever thought that the insane and evil Democrats have caused the impending economic disaster by being determined to spend America into bankruptcy without even providing a damn budget while they do so???

Gauges of Christmas sales range from dismal to so-so. One group that tracks shoppers said it was the worst showing since the bleak Christmas of 2008, when the country was in the midst of a historic financial crisis. MasterCard’s SpendingPulse, which tracked sales from Oct. 28 to Dec. 24, said sales grew by only 0.7 percent over last year, but other trackers reported somewhat higher numbers.

The poor ending to the shopping season forced economists to lower their estimates for sales gains from the solid 3 percent to 4 percent range originally forecast. ShopperTrak is expecting a 2.5 percent increase in November and December sales, down from an earlier forecast of 3.3 percent. The International Council of Shopping Centers said growth during the final week before Christmas was only 0.7 percent, but it is sticking to its forecast of 3 percent for the whole season.

“What could have been a merry Christmas is going to turn to a ho-hum Christmas, and we can thank our, you know, politicians for getting in the middle of it all,” NPD Group analyst Marshal Cohen said. “This great unknown puts a big damper on the consumer feeling confident to go out and spend more.”

Some analysts also blamed the Newtown, Conn., school shootings just days before Christmas for dampening appetites for spending.

“The Newtown massacre, psychologically I think, spread through the country,” said Robin Lewis, a New York-based retail consultant. “This event was not isolated in the Northeast. It slammed the consumer with a lot of sobriety and made us think about what is happening in this world we live in, particularly around the holidays, when things are supposed to be wonderful and peaceful.”

Consumer sentiment plunged this month after hitting four-year highs in November. Analysts blamed growing public apprehension about the fiscal cliff and the partisan standoff in Washington. […]

Further damage could come during the week after Christmas, which is also a major time for shopping as many consumers go to malls and redeem gift cards. President Obama is returning to Washington Thursday from a Hawaii vacation to restart negotiations, but there is no accord in sight or signs of a breakthrough.

NEW YORK — Stocks ended sharply lower Wednesday, one day after the re-election of President Obama. The Dow Jones industrial average closed down about 313 points, or 2.4%.

Investor reaction is decidedly negative over the defeat of the more business-friendly Mitt Romney and the continued gridlock in Congress that makes it tough for lawmakers to avert a fiscal policy crisis by year-end.

Many merchants depend on Christmas for 40% of their annual profits. So this is going to be a “God damn America” that keeps on damning because some of these water-treading merchants just went down with their businesses.

Do you know what would have happened if we had had an actual leader? He would have looked at the Democrat Senate and the Republic House and he would have staked out the center and dragged both sides to an agreement. Because that is what would have been for the good of the nation. Instead Obama is actually farther to the left than the Democrat Senate and there is absolutely NO grown-up to bring anybody toward anything. That’s because Obama believes that the more suffering he inflicts on America, the more ammunition he has to demonize somebody else. And nobody in the media will hold the president of the United States responsible for anything because he’s a Democrat. Unlike Bush, of course.

Understand that Barak Obama is going to spend the next four years of abject failure to lead the way he spent the last four years: blaming somebody else for his failed presidency. The only difference is that Obama spent the last four years blaming George Bush and he’s going to spend the next four years blaming the GOP House.

America is going down. And Obama is going to demonize his opponents the same way that he’s spent the last five years demonizing his opponents.

Maybe the American people will realize how terrible their decision was and try to rectify it by giving Republicans a massive win in 2014; maybe they’ll keep drinking Kool Aid. I’m one that says it really doesn’t matter. Because six years of Obama is more than enough to cripple this country in a way that it will never recover from. And whether Republicans win in 2014 or not, it will be too damn late to heal the fatal cancer that has metastasized and spread and grown these last four miserable years of Obama.

Of course, history now records that Obama didn’t actually make the economy better; he simply changed his bullcrap to a slightly different brand of bullcrap in the hopes you won’t be able to smell the bullcrap.

Okay. So how are we going to be able to EVER hold him responsible? I mean, he’s saying he’s made the economy better now and he’s on the right track to fix everything. Maybe he’s just as wrong as he was back then when he was also wrong, wrong, wrong. Obama by his own lame excuse didn’t know jack squat back then and he still doesn’t know jack squat now. So the world’s squirmiest political weasel says the only thing that a squirmy political weasel can say now that four years of his policies have failed: namely that it wasn’t his policies that failed; it was the rest of the world around him. So how can you hold a liberal president responsible for not understanding the real world???

According to the U.S. Treasury, the debt of the U.S. government climbed by a total of $1,275,901,078,828.74 in fiscal 2012, which ended yesterday.

That means the federal government borrowed approximately an additional $10,855 for each household in the United States just over the past twelve months.

The total debt of the United States now equals approximately $136,690 per household.

In fiscal 2011, the debt increased by about $10,454 per household–$401 less than the $10,855 per household increase of 2012.

The $1.2758 trillion that the debt increased in fiscal 2012 was about $47.18 billion more than the $1.2287 trillion that the debt increased in fiscal 2011.

The federal fiscal year begins on Oct. 1 and ends on Sept. 30.

At the close of business on Sept. 30, 2011, the total debt of the U.S. government was $14,790,340,328,557.15, according to the Treasury. At the close of business on Sept. 28, the last business day of fiscal 2012, it was $16,066,241,407,385.89

That meant the debt increased in fiscal 2012 by $1,275,901,078,828.74.

At the close of business on Sept. 30, 2010, the debt had stood at $13,561,623,030,891.79. Over the course of fiscal 2011, it increased by $1,228,717,297,665.36 before closing at 14,790,340,328,557.15 on Sept. 30, 2011.

Excuse me, math is not one of my strong subjects but shouldn’t the budget deficit be, like, you know, going down every year instead of going up?

Sorry – my bad. For a minute, I thought we were living in an alternate reality where people actually took things like trillion dollar deficits seriously. I will now return to La-La Land and make happy faces because President Obama has the situation well in hand.

Obama – the man who demonized George Bush for adding $4 trillion in debt over eight years – has run up $6 trillion in four. A full third of the entire US debt accumulated over the nation’s entire history has come under Obama’s presidency.

We’re like Europe now for the first time in American history under Obama: our economy is smaller than our debt and while our economy keeps shrinking because of the fool-in-chief’s stupid policies, our debt keeps heading straight up into space like a rocket.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — Here’s a new way to think about the U.S. government’s epic borrowing: More than half of the $9 trillion in debt that Uncle Sam is expected to build up over the next decade will be interest.

More than half. In fact, $4.8 trillion.

If that’s hard to grasp, here’s another way to look at why that’s a problem.

In 2015 alone, the estimated interest due – $533 billion – is equal to a third of the federal income taxes expected to be paid that year, said Charles Konigsberg, chief budget counsel of the Concord Coalition, a deficit watchdog group.

The stimulus that was sold on the promise of “shovel-ready jobs” ended up, even in Obama’s own words, being “not as shovel-ready as we thought” as it completely and utterly failed to do anything but bankrupt America and transform this nation into debt-slaves.

Obama has been wrong about absolutely everything he ever said. Now he’s implicitly arguing, “I was wrong about the lies I told you back then, but why don’t you trust my current lies now?”

KROFT: The national debt has gone up sixty percent in — in the four years that you’ve been in office.

OBAMA: Well, first — first of all, Steve, I think it’s important to understand the context here. When I came into office, I inherited the biggest deficit in our history. And over the last four years, the deficit has gone up, but ninety percent of that is as a consequence of two wars that weren’t paid for, as a consequence of tax cuts that weren’t paid for, a prescription drug plan that was not paid for, and then the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Now we took some emergency actions, but that accounts for about 10 percent of this increase in the deficit, and we have actually seen the federal government grow at a slower pace than at any time since Dwight Eisenhower, in fact, substantially lower than the federal government grew under either Ronald Reagan or George Bush.

Now the Afghanistan War. Rather than look up the spending in dollars, I’ll produce the cost of the war under Bush and under Obama in American lives (as of September 28, 2012):

Whether you look at it in dollars or in lives, you’ll find that Obama is responsible for over 70 percent of the cost of the Afghanistan War. Because you see, what Obama did was perform an incredibly cynical political calculation. Obama demonized Iraq as “the bad war” and made Afghanistan – in which Bush was merely performing a holding action – into “the good war” as a way to attack Bush in Iraq. Obama in effect said we shouldn’t be fighting in Iraq where the flat terrain allowed full movement and maneuver of our air, artillery and armored power and an educated population made victory possible; we should be fighting in a mountainous hellhole where we couldn’t utilize our military advantages and where the people were so ignorant they would believe every lie they were told and go on fighting forever instead. That is literally what Obama effectively said. And Obama is saying, “It’s not MYfault that I massively increased the war in Afghanistan; it’s Bush’s fault I did that.” And Obama is claiming credit for the Iraq War that Bush won and blaming Bush for the Afghanistan War that he has virtually lost.

Let me move on to the economy.

You have to ask the question, why was George Bush responsible for ninety percent of Obama’s entire presidency as far as the mainstream media was concerned, but Bill Clinton wasn’t responsible for the DotCom bubble collapse that happened on his watch and that Bush inherited??? Why did we never hear 900,000 stories from the media on how Clinton was to blame and in conclusion nobody could reasonably blame Bush for it???

The Market Capitalization of the Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Full Cap was $16.7 Trillion as of April 30, 2008. Comparatively, the market cap at the end of Q1 in 2000 was approximately $16 trillion (only slightly smaller). However, between 2000 Q1 and Q1 2003 the index lost a stunning 43% of its valuation. In other words, $7.1 Trillion of wealth was lost. This stunning number includes the completeness of the crash.

Who was still president in the first quarter of the fiscal year 2000 when this disaster began to blow up? It was the guy who was still president on January 20, 2001 when George Bush assumed – and dare I say “inherited” – the office of the president.

Obviously, there was a problem. The first shots through this bubble came from the companies themselves: many reported huge losses and some folded outright within months of their offering. Siliconaires were moving out of $4 million estates and back to the room above their parents’ garage. In the year 1999, there were 457 IPOs, most of which were internet and technology related. Of those 457 IPOs, 117 doubled in price on the first day of trading. In 2001 the number of IPOs dwindled to 76, and none of them doubled on the first day of trading.

I want to know why Bush is still responsible for Obama’s entire economic mess four years later when Bill Clinton was never held responsible for so much as one second of Bush’s mess. I want to understand why Democrats are lying, dishonest, hypocrite slime whose only talent is bankrupting America and then demagoguing Republicans for what they did.

You find out that the Dotcom bubble began to grow huge in 1995 and virtually all of Clinton’s economic “success” that didn’t have to do with the policies of the Republican House and the Republican Senate that swept into power in 1995 as a result of the historic 1994 asskicking as a result of Clinton’s and the Democrat Party’s abject failure had to do with the inflation of that damn bubble. Clinton fanned the flames of that Dotcom bubble because he knew that it would explode on the next president’s watch and that Democrats were far too personally and pathologically dishonest to ever blame HIM for it.

Let’s see: Juanita Broaddrick credibly accused Bill Clinton of raping her. There’s no question Bill Clinton had a sexual affair with Gennifer Flowers – and lied about it. Bill Clinton paid Paula Jones $850,000 to settle her sexual harassment case against him. Kathleen Willey was a loyal Democrat and supporter of Bill Clinton until he grabbed her hand and placed it on his genitalia. And then we all know about how he lied about his sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky, even calling her a “stalker,” until it was revealed that she had a dress with his semen on it.

Yeah, I’d trust Bill Clinton. Every bit as much as Monica Lewinsky’s father would trust Bill Clinton with Monica’s younger sister.

Lawyers constitute the fourth most distrusted profession in America. And Bill Clinton was too dishonest to remain part of it. That should only add to the weight that the slickest politician of all time – he was nicknamed “Slick Willie” as governor of Arkansas for damn good reason – is the king of the second most distrusted profession in America as a politician.

And so, yeah, if I were in the market for a used car, and Bill Clinton came out as the salesman, I would go find myself another used car salesman.

Yeah, let’s trust Slick Willy. Because we are as evil as we are stupid on the days that we aren’t as stupid as we are evil.

But I’m just getting started.

Why is it that George Bush is still held responsible for the Obama’s presidency four years later when the same people who hold George Bush responsible wouldn’t hold Bill Clinton responsible for a disaster that happened seven months and 22 days into Bush’s presidency (still during Clinton’s fiscal year, for what it’s worth). Because we had a terrible terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, just seven months into Bush’s presidency, and it was a) Bush’s fault and b) we shouldn’t be wasting time passing blame, anyway, if you began asking too many questions about just why the hell it was Bush’s fault.

Author James Risen won the Pulitzer Prize on Tuesday for his much ballyhooed New York Times report last December that revealed President Bush’s previously secret terrorist surveillance program – a revelation he uncovered while researching his book “State of War.”

In the same book, however, Risen makes an equally explosive claim about President Clinton’s relationship with the CIA – which his editors at the Times have so far declined to cover.

Upon taking power in 1993, Risen reports, the Clinton administration “began slashing the intelligence budget in search of a peace dividend, and Bill Clinton showed almost no interest in intelligence matters.”

The agency cutbacks combined with presidential disinterest took their toll almost immediately.

“Over a three-or-four-year period in the early-to-mid 1990s,” reports Risen, “virtually an entire generation of CIA officers – the people who had won the Cold War – quit or retired. One CIA veteran compared the agency to an airline that had lost all of is senior pilots . . . “

After Clinton CIA Director John Deutch cashiered several senior officers over a scandal in Guatamala, the situation got even worse.

“Morale [at the CIA] plunged to new lows, and the agency became paralyzed by an aversion to high-risk espionage operations for fear they would lead to political flaps. Less willing to take big risks, the CIA was less able to recruit spies in dangerous places such as Iraq.”

The Clinton era of risk aversion also hobbled CIA efforts to get Osama bin Laden. In early 1998, Risen says, the agency was prepared to launch a special operation to kidnap the al Qaeda chief in Afghanistan.

“To be sure the operation was high risk, and there was a strong possibility that it would be so messy that bin Laden would be killed rather than captured. [CIA Director George] Tenet and the CIA’s lawyers worried deeply about that issue; they believed the covert action finding on al Qaeda that President Clinton had signed authorized only bin Laden’s capture, not his death.”

Frustrated by restrictions that made dealing with the big challenges too difficult, the agency turned its energy to lesser problems.

Reports Risen: “Thanks to Vice President Al Gore, for example, the CIA briefly made the global environment one of is priorities.”

Add to that the infamous Blackhawk Down fiasco in which Clinton expanded the humanitarian mission to Somalia began under George H.W. Bush into a military action without bothering to provide the US forces the heavy armor they needed.

Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier. America had entered with 30,000 soldiers in addition to thousands of soldiers from different countries in the world. … As I said, our boys were shocked by the low morale of the American soldier and they realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger. He was unable to endure the strikes that were dealt to his army, so he fled, and America had to stop all its bragging and all that noise it was making in the press after the Gulf War in which it destroyed the infrastructure and the milk and dairy industry that was vital for the infants and the children and the civilians and blew up dams which were necessary for the crops people grew to feed their families. Proud of this destruction, America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them. I was in Sudan when this happened. I was very happy to learn of that great defeat that America suffered, so was every Muslim. …

And bin Laden said that America was a weak paper tiger and we’d crawl out dragging our dead because that’s exactly what Bill Clinton had done in Somalia in 1993.

On 9/11/2001, the United States was both weak and blind. And to quote Obama’s “reverend,” “our chickens came home to roost” for our weakness and blindness as we were hit with the worst attack on American soil in our history.

Just why the hell is it that the same damn hypocrite left that says, “One year of failure, two years of failure, three years of failure, four years of failure, hell, EIGHT years of failure, it doesn’t matter – IT’S BUSH’S FAULT!” never ONCEblame Bill Clinton for either the Dotcom implosion that vaporized $7.1 trillion and sank America into recession? Why didn’t these liberals say, “What happened during the Bush presidency was ENTIRELYBill Clinton’s fault and Bush was forced to clean up Clinton’s mess and America is paying the price for Clinton’s sins.”??? Nobody in the media said that, in spite of the facts. And now, very nearly everybody in the media is saying exactly that regarding George Bush being entirely to blame for Obama’s mess even after Obama has presided over his mess for four miserable years.

Why?!?!? Other than the fact that if you are a liberal, you are therefore ipso facto and ergo sum a pathologically dishonest human being whose soul swims in lies?

You have to go back to the 1930s and the propaganda of Goebbels in Germany and TASS in Russia to find this level of media manipulation and deceit. And we’re heading in the same direction: because we are being railroaded into making increasingly stupid and immoral decisions based on the constant stream of fabrications and dishonest narratives we’re being told.

(CNSNews.com)– The Obama administration circumvented federal law in announcing it would waive the work requirements in welfare, a GAO review found, saying that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should have submitted the new policy to Congress for review.

At issue is whether the policy falls under the purview of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) that requires all administrative changes of policy or regulation be submitted to Congress for review and possible disapproval.

The GAO, in a letter to House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) and Senate Finance Committee ranking member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), said that the July 12 change in policy falls under the CRA and should have been submitted to Congress for approval.

“We find that the July 12 Information Memorandum issued by HHS is a statement of general applicability and future effect, designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy with regard to TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the formal name for welfare],” GAO said in its Sept. 4 letter.

“[T]he Information Memorandum is subject to the requirement that it be submitted to both Houses of Congress and the Comptroller General before it can take effect.”

In other words, HHS must formally submit the letter to Congress and the Comptroller General before it can legally issue the waivers to the requirement that a certain portion of welfare recipients work.

GAO noted that it had not determined whether or not HHS had the legal authority to waive the work requirements in the first place, just that it must follow its legal obligations under the CRA.

HHS had contended that it had complied with the law when it notified both House and Senate committees of its new policy July 12, an argument GAO rejected saying that informal notice did not satisfy the law.

“Finally, while HHS may have informally notified the Congressional committees of the issuance of the Information Memorandum, informal notification does not meet the reporting requirements of the CRA.”

According to GAO, federal law requires that the government submit any proposed changes in federal regulations or rules to Congress, so that it may act to formally disapprove and stop the rule from taking effect. GAO found that any rule that is meant to “implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy” must be submitted to Congress before it can take effect.

In July, HHS issued a memorandum to states announcing it would begin waiving the welfare-to-work requirements for those states who wanted to change their current welfare-to-work programs, including the definitions of what qualifies as work and how states calculate who is and who is not working.

Camp, whose office released the GAO finding, said that HHS’ waiver policy amounted to an “end-run” around Congress.

“Despite his latest attempt at an end-run around Congress, this GAO report clearly states that the Administration must submit this rule to Congress for review before it can take effect. Work requirements were the centerpiece of welfare reform, and we cannot allow that progress to be undone,” Camp said in a statement Tuesday.

The following isn’t a takedown of Obama for merely failing to turn the economy around; it is a scathing indictment of Obama’s entire premise for his 2008 entire campaign and failed presidency:

Niall Ferguson: Obama’s Gotta Go
Aug 19, 2012 1:00 AM EDT
Why does Paul Ryan scare the president so much? Because Obama has broken his promises, and it’s clear that the GOP ticket’s path to prosperity is our only hope.

I was a good loser four years ago. “In the grand scheme of history,” I wrote the day after Barack Obama’s election as president, “four decades is not an especially long time. Yet in that brief period America has gone from the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. to the apotheosis of Barack Obama. You would not be human if you failed to acknowledge this as a cause for great rejoicing.”

Despite having been—full disclosure—an adviser to John McCain, I acknowledged his opponent’s remarkable qualities: his soaring oratory, his cool, hard-to-ruffle temperament, and his near faultless campaign organization.

Yet the question confronting the country nearly four years later is not who was the better candidate four years ago. It is whether the winner has delivered on his promises. And the sad truth is that he has not.

In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.

In an unguarded moment earlier this year, the president commented that the private sector of the economy was “doing fine.” Certainly, the stock market is well up (by 74 percent) relative to the close on Inauguration Day 2009. But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak. Meanwhile, since 2008, a staggering 3.6 million Americans have been added to Social Security’s disability insurance program. This is one of many ways unemployment is being concealed.

In his fiscal year 2010 budget—the first he presented—the president envisaged growth of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4.0 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012. The actual numbers were 2.4 percent in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011; few forecasters now expect it to be much above 2.3 percent this year.

Unemployment was supposed to be 6 percent by now. It has averaged 8.2 percent this year so far. Meanwhile real median annual household income has dropped more than 5 percent since June 2009. Nearly 110 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011, mostly Medicaid or food stamps.

Welcome to Obama’s America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits.

And all this despite a far bigger hike in the federal debt than we were promised. According to the 2010 budget, the debt in public hands was supposed to fall in relation to GDP from 67 percent in 2010 to less than 66 percent this year. If only. By the end of this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), it will reach 70 percent of GDP. These figures significantly understate the debt problem, however. The ratio that matters is debt to revenue. That number has leapt upward from 165 percent in 2008 to 262 percent this year, according to figures from the International Monetary Fund. Among developed economies, only Ireland and Spain have seen a bigger deterioration.

Not only did the initial fiscal stimulus fade after the sugar rush of 2009, but the president has done absolutely nothing to close the long-term gap between spending and revenue.

His much-vaunted health-care reform will not prevent spending on health programs growing from more than 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent in 2037. Add the projected increase in the costs of Social Security and you are looking at a total bill of 16 percent of GDP 25 years from now. That is only slightly less than the average cost of all federal programs and activities, apart from net interest payments, over the past 40 years. Under this president’s policies, the debt is on course to approach 200 percent of GDP in 2037—a mountain of debt that is bound to reduce growth even further.

And even that figure understates the real debt burden. The most recent estimate for the difference between the net present value of federal government liabilities and the net present value of future federal revenues—what economist Larry Kotlikoff calls the true “fiscal gap”—is $222 trillion.

The president’s supporters will, of course, say that the poor performance of the economy can’t be blamed on him. They would rather finger his predecessor, or the economists he picked to advise him, or Wall Street, or Europe—anyone but the man in the White House.

There’s some truth in this. It was pretty hard to foresee what was going to happen to the economy in the years after 2008. Yet surely we can legitimately blame the president for the political mistakes of the past four years. After all, it’s the president’s job to run the executive branch effectively—to lead the nation. And here is where his failure has been greatest.

On paper it looked like an economics dream team: Larry Summers, Christina Romer, and Austan Goolsbee, not to mention Peter Orszag, Tim Geithner, and Paul Volcker. The inside story, however, is that the president was wholly unable to manage the mighty brains—and egos—he had assembled to advise him.

According to Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Men, Summers told Orszag over dinner in May 2009: “You know, Peter, we’re really home alone … I mean it. We’re home alone. There’s no adult in charge. Clinton would never have made these mistakes [of indecisiveness on key economic issues].” On issue after issue, according to Suskind, Summers overruled the president. “You can’t just march in and make that argument and then have him make a decision,” Summers told Orszag, “because he doesn’t know what he’s deciding.” (I have heard similar things said off the record by key participants in the president’s interminable “seminar” on Afghanistan policy.)

This problem extended beyond the White House. After the imperial presidency of the Bush era, there was something more like parliamentary government in the first two years of Obama’s administration. The president proposed; Congress disposed. It was Nancy Pelosi and her cohorts who wrote the stimulus bill and made sure it was stuffed full of political pork. And it was the Democrats in Congress—led by Christopher Dodd and Barney Frank—who devised the 2,319-page Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank, for short), a near-perfect example of excessive complexity in regulation. The act requires that regulators create 243 rules, conduct 67 studies, and issue 22 periodic reports. It eliminates one regulator and creates two new ones.

It is five years since the financial crisis began, but the central problems—excessive financial concentration and excessive financial leverage—have not been addressed.

Today a mere 10 too-big-to-fail financial institutions are responsible for three quarters of total financial assets under management in the United States. Yet the country’s largest banks are at least $50 billion short of meeting new capital requirements under the new “Basel III” accords governing bank capital adequacy.

And then there was health care. No one seriously doubts that the U.S. system needed to be reformed. But the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 did nothing to address the core defects of the system: the long-run explosion of Medicare costs as the baby boomers retire, the “fee for service” model that drives health-care inflation, the link from employment to insurance that explains why so many Americans lack coverage, and the excessive costs of the liability insurance that our doctors need to protect them from our lawyers.

Ironically, the core Obamacare concept of the “individual mandate” (requiring all Americans to buy insurance or face a fine) was something the president himself had opposed when vying with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. A much more accurate term would be “Pelosicare,” since it was she who really forced the bill through Congress.

Pelosicare was not only a political disaster. Polls consistently showed that only a minority of the public liked the ACA, and it was the main reason why Republicans regained control of the House in 2010. It was also another fiscal snafu. The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period.

Related

The president just kept ducking the fiscal issue. Having set up a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, headed by retired Wyoming Republican senator Alan Simpson and former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles, Obama effectively sidelined its recommendations of approximately $3 trillion in cuts and $1 trillion in added revenues over the coming decade. As a result there was no “grand bargain” with the House Republicans—which means that, barring some miracle, the country will hit a fiscal cliff on Jan. 1 as the Bush tax cuts expire and the first of $1.2 trillion of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts are imposed. The CBO estimates the net effect could be a 4 percent reduction in output.

The failures of leadership on economic and fiscal policy over the past four years have had geopolitical consequences. The World Bank expects the U.S. to grow by just 2 percent in 2012. China will grow four times faster than that; India three times faster. By 2017, the International Monetary Fund predicts, the GDP of China will overtake that of the United States.

Meanwhile, the fiscal train wreck has already initiated a process of steep cuts in the defense budget, at a time when it is very far from clear that the world has become a safer place—least of all in the Middle East.

For me the president’s greatest failure has been not to think through the implications of these challenges to American power. Far from developing a coherent strategy, he believed—perhaps encouraged by the premature award of the Nobel Peace Prize—that all he needed to do was to make touchy-feely speeches around the world explaining to foreigners that he was not George W. Bush.

In Tokyo in November 2009, the president gave his boilerplate hug-a-foreigner speech: “In an interconnected world, power does not need to be a zero-sum game, and nations need not fear the success of another … The United States does not seek to contain China … On the contrary, the rise of a strong, prosperous China can be a source of strength for the community of nations.” Yet by fall 2011, this approach had been jettisoned in favor of a “pivot” back to the Pacific, including risible deployments of troops to Australia and Singapore. From the vantage point of Beijing, neither approach had credibility.

His Cairo speech of June 4, 2009, was an especially clumsy bid to ingratiate himself on what proved to be the eve of a regional revolution. “I’m also proud to carry with me,” he told Egyptians, “a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: Assalamu alaikum … I’ve come here … to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based … upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition.”

Believing it was his role to repudiate neoconservatism, Obama completely missed the revolutionary wave of Middle Eastern democracy—precisely the wave the neocons had hoped to trigger with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. When revolution broke out—first in Iran, then in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria—the president faced stark alternatives. He could try to catch the wave by lending his support to the youthful revolutionaries and trying to ride it in a direction advantageous to American interests. Or he could do nothing and let the forces of reaction prevail.

In the case of Iran he did nothing, and the thugs of the Islamic Republic ruthlessly crushed the demonstrations. Ditto Syria. In Libya he was cajoled into intervening. In Egypt he tried to have it both ways, exhorting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave, then drawing back and recommending an “orderly transition.” The result was a foreign-policy debacle. Not only were Egypt’s elites appalled by what seemed to them a betrayal, but the victors—the Muslim Brotherhood—had nothing to be grateful for. America’s closest Middle Eastern allies—Israel and the Saudis—looked on in amazement.

“This is what happens when you get caught by surprise,” an anonymous American official told The New York Times in February 2011. “We’ve had endless strategy sessions for the past two years on Mideast peace, on containing Iran. And how many of them factored in the possibility that Egypt moves from stability to turmoil? None.”

Remarkably the president polls relatively strongly on national security. Yet the public mistakes his administration’s astonishingly uninhibited use of political assassination for a coherent strategy. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, the civilian proportion of drone casualties was 16 percent last year. Ask yourself how the liberal media would have behaved if George W. Bush had used drones this way. Yet somehow it is only ever Republican secretaries of state who are accused of committing “war crimes.”

The real crime is that the assassination program destroys potentially crucial intelligence (as well as antagonizing locals) every time a drone strikes. It symbolizes the administration’s decision to abandon counterinsurgency in favor of a narrow counterterrorism. What that means in practice is the abandonment not only of Iraq but soon of Afghanistan too. Understandably, the men and women who have served there wonder what exactly their sacrifice was for, if any notion that we are nation building has been quietly dumped. Only when both countries sink back into civil war will we realize the real price of Obama’s foreign policy.

Related Stories

America under this president is a superpower in retreat, if not retirement. Small wonder 46 percent of Americans—and 63 percent of Chinese—believe that China already has replaced the U.S. as the world’s leading superpower or eventually will.

It is a sign of just how completely Barack Obama has “lost his narrative” since getting elected that the best case he has yet made for reelection is that Mitt Romney should not be president. In his notorious “you didn’t build that” speech, Obama listed what he considers the greatest achievements of big government: the Internet, the GI Bill, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Hoover Dam, the Apollo moon landing, and even (bizarrely) the creation of the middle class. Sadly, he couldn’t mention anything comparable that his administration has achieved.

Now Obama is going head-to-head with his nemesis: a politician who believes more in content than in form, more in reform than in rhetoric. In the past days much has been written about Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s choice of running mate. I know, like, and admire Paul Ryan. For me, the point about him is simple. He is one of only a handful of politicians in Washington who is truly sincere about addressing this country’s fiscal crisis.

Over the past few years Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” has evolved, but the essential points are clear: replace Medicare with a voucher program for those now under 55 (not current or imminent recipients), turn Medicaid and food stamps into block grants for the states, and—crucially—simplify the tax code and lower tax rates to try to inject some supply-side life back into the U.S. private sector. Ryan is not preaching austerity. He is preaching growth. And though Reagan-era veterans like David Stockman may have their doubts, they underestimate Ryan’s mastery of this subject. There is literally no one in Washington who understands the challenges of fiscal reform better.

Just as importantly, Ryan has learned that politics is the art of the possible. There are parts of his plan that he is understandably soft-pedaling right now—notably the new source of federal revenue referred to in his 2010 “Roadmap for America’s Future” as a “business consumption tax.” Stockman needs to remind himself that the real “fairy-tale budget plans” have been the ones produced by the White House since 2009.

I first met Paul Ryan in April 2010. I had been invited to a dinner in Washington where the U.S. fiscal crisis was going to be the topic of discussion. So crucial did this subject seem to me that I expected the dinner to happen in one of the city’s biggest hotel ballrooms. It was actually held in the host’s home. Three congressmen showed up—a sign of how successful the president’s fiscal version of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (about the debt) had been. Ryan blew me away. I have wanted to see him in the White House ever since.

It remains to be seen if the American public is ready to embrace the radical overhaul of the nation’s finances that Ryan proposes. The public mood is deeply ambivalent. The president’s approval rating is down to 49 percent. The Gallup Economic Confidence Index is at minus 28 (down from minus 13 in May). But Obama is still narrowly ahead of Romney in the polls as far as the popular vote is concerned (50.8 to 48.2) and comfortably ahead in the Electoral College. The pollsters say that Paul Ryan’s nomination is not a game changer; indeed, he is a high-risk choice for Romney because so many people feel nervous about the reforms Ryan proposes.

But one thing is clear. Ryan psychs Obama out. This has been apparent ever since the White House went on the offensive against Ryan in the spring of last year. And the reason he psychs him out is that, unlike Obama, Ryan has a plan—as opposed to a narrative—for this country.

Mitt Romney is not the best candidate for the presidency I can imagine. But he was clearly the best of the Republican contenders for the nomination. He brings to the presidency precisely the kind of experience—both in the business world and in executive office—that Barack Obama manifestly lacked four years ago. (If only Obama had worked at Bain Capital for a few years, instead of as a community organizer in Chicago, he might understand exactly why the private sector is not “doing fine” right now.) And by picking Ryan as his running mate, Romney has given the first real sign that—unlike Obama—he is a courageous leader who will not duck the challenges America faces.

The voters now face a stark choice. They can let Barack Obama’s rambling, solipsistic narrative continue until they find themselves living in some American version of Europe, with low growth, high unemployment, even higher debt—and real geopolitical decline.

Or they can opt for real change: the kind of change that will end four years of economic underperformance, stop the terrifying accumulation of debt, and reestablish a secure fiscal foundation for American national security.

I’ve said it before: it’s a choice between les États Unis and the Republic of the Battle Hymn.

I was a good loser four years ago. But this year, fired up by the rise of Ryan, I want badly to win.

Niall Ferguson is a professor of history at Harvard University. He is also a senior research fellow at Jesus College, Oxford University, and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. His Latest book, Civilization: The West and the Rest, has just been published by Penguin Press.

This article is a complete ass-kicking of Obama. Which is why the doctrinaire ideologue left immediately came so completely unglued by it.

“Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor. “Barabbas,” they answered. “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called Christ?” Pilate asked. They all answered, “Crucify him!” “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!” When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!” All the people answered, “Let his blood be on us and on our children!” Then he released Barabbas to them. But he had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified. — Matthew 27:21-26

I was quite surprised to hear that Mitt Romney had announced that tomorrow was “the big day” to announce his vice president selection. Like most, I assumed he would be making it immediately before the GOP National Convention.

I was also somewhat surprised to hear that, apparently, Romney had called Marco Rubio and told him that he would NOT be the running mate on the ticket.

We don’t know who it will be, of course, but there’s been a fair amount of intelligent conservative speculation that it may very well be Paul Ryan.

That will be an incredibly bold choice from a man who has a been cautious for most of his life, but this is what I believe Romney’s reasoning is:

Marco Rubio would have been a good choice if Romney was thinking in terms of winning more Hispanics or winning Florida. And Rob Portman would have been a good choice if Romney felt that he would need Portman’s pull to carry Ohio. Nikki Haley or Kelly Ayote would have been a decision to pursue “the women’s vote.” But none of these excellent choices would define the race the way Paul Ryan would.

Republicans and Democrats spent last summer battling how best to save $2.1 trillion over the next decade. They are spending this summer battling how best to not save $2.1 trillion over the next decade.

In the course of that year, the U.S. government’s fiscal gap — the true measure of the nation’s indebtedness — rose by $11 trillion.

The fiscal gap is the present value difference between projected future spending and revenue. It captures all government liabilities, whether they are official obligations to service Treasury bonds or unofficial commitments, such as paying for food stamps or buying drones.

[…]

The U.S. fiscal gap, calculated (by us) using theCongressional Budget Office’s realistic long-term budget forecast — the Alternative Fiscal Scenario — is now $222 trillion. Last year, it was $211 trillion. The $11 trillion difference — this year’s true federal deficit — is 10 times larger than the official deficit and roughly as large as the entire stock of official debt in public hands.

This fantastic and dangerous growth in the fiscal gap is not new. In 2003 and 2004, the economists Alan Auerbach and William Gale extended the CBO’s short-term forecast and measured fiscal gaps of $60 trillion and $86 trillion, respectively. In 2007, the first year the CBO produced the Alternative Fiscal Scenario, the gap, by our reckoning, stood at $175 trillion. By 2009, when the CBO began reporting the AFS annually, the gap was $184 trillion. In 2010, it was $202 trillion, followed by $211 trillion in 2011 and $222 trillion in 2012.

If in fact Mitt Romney picks Paul Ryan, THATreckless fiscal insanity will be the central defining issue of the campaign.

More than any election in American history, this would be a true “monumental choice” election: do you want Obama and a welfare America that will utterly implode under the supermassive weight of hundreds of trillions of dollars of debt, or do you want to have at least a chance of national survival???

Many are saying that the Democrats are “licking their chops” over the prospect of running against Paul Ryan. Democrats have demonized Paul Ryan viciously, using a look-alike to depict him pushing an elderly lady in a wheelchair off of a cliff. But the actual reality is just the opposite – as the facts prove. For what it’s worth, the left was going to basically run against Ryan anyway.

Food stamps have increased 53 percent since Obama took office, from 30 million receiving them in 2008 to 46 million people receiving them today. In the 1970s when the food stamp program began, one in fifty Americans were on them; one in seven Americans are on them now. And more Americans are filing for disability today than are getting jobs, with the number of Americans expected to go on disability expected to jump 71 percent in the next ten years. For the record, only 1 percent of people who go on disability ever return to work. You either think these are good things or you think they’re terribly bad things. And this November you’re going to vote which you think it is.

If you want to abdicate all personal responsibility and parasitically suck off the tit of a government that takes from the producers to hand out to those who vote Democrat until America collapses, then vote for Obama.

If you are looking around and saying, this can’t possibly continue. America is simply doomed on the path we’re on, then vote for Romney.

No one in America is more able to get our spending, deficit and debt under control than Paul Ryan.

If Paul Ryan is the guy, more than any other guy that Romney could pick, America will face a true choice in November.

This election will mark the greatest and most monumental choice for the direction of America and the world since the one I cite at the beginning of this article. I pray that we have more wisdom than that last momentous decision. Israel was wiped off the map less than forty years later as a result of their choice; our disaster will ensue far faster than that if we choose foolishly and wickedly for Obama.

Dumbass, why dont you consider the MASSIVE drop in revenues due to the economic cliff the US fell off due to Bush’s policys. The downslide started mid 2007, sorry new president takes the helm in jan. 2009! Ship was sinking, obama just trying to bail out the water with resistance from all Republicans ! I hope gets on so we can blame everything on him…

But now Obama’s the president and the fact that gas prices have averaged FAR more during Obama’s presidency (gas prices have averaged $3.25 under Obama versus only $2.33 under Bush) isn’t Obama’s fault at all. The same thing is true of our spending and debt and the same damn thing is true of liberal hoity-toity issues like Gitmo. At some point every liberal skull will explode from trying to contain all the contradictions.

I wrote an article right after the election that pretty much sums up my views: “Do Unto Obama As Liberals Did Unto Bush.” It comes down to this: by your own measure shall ye be measured. You don’t get to attack Bush and Republicans for eight years by going after Bush like rabid pit bulls attacking bloody meat and then get sanctimonious with us. Dumbass. Especially when by any measure: GDP growth, jobs, household wealth, deficits, spending, debt, consumer confidence, or any other measure, the economy did FAR better during the eight years of Bush than it EVER has under Obama.

2) Do you know what sane people do (my bad – of COURSE you don’t know what sane people do!) if they have less revenue? THEY SPEND LESS, YOU DUMBASS. But somehow your messiah never got the sanity memo so instead of spending less he imposed spending after spending measure and imposed levels of bureaucrats and regulators that this nation has never seen. You people are like the millionaire’s son who pisses away his inheritance and then says, “Well, it’s not like that means I’ve got to spend less or anything; I’m ENTITLED to spend more. I think I’ll go buy a Ferrari and crash it after a drunken party And then I’ll celebrate ‘my recovery’ by buying another Ferrari.”

Even if everything you said was true – and it’s not – we should be spending LESS. But what is your messiah doing? He’s spending three times more and blaming Bush. That is morally and rationally insane.

Liberals have a GSA-view of the universe. But as Margaret Thatcher once famously said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples’ money.”

3) Then there’s the fact that Democrats were nearly TOTALLY to blame for imposing all of the idiotic conditions that led to your “Massive drop in revenues.” “Bush’s policies?” Bush tried SEVENTEEN TIMES to reform and regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before it collapsed, you abject dumbass. Bush began trying back in 2003, and even the New York Slimes records that conservative economists were predicting back in 1999 that these stupid and immoral Democrat policies would explode the economy:

New York Times, Sep 30, 1999: “Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits. […]

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980′s.

”From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,” said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ”If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.”

Barney Frank stated:

”These two entities — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — are not facing any kind of financial crisis,” said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ”The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

REP. BARNEY FRANK, D-MASS.: I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They’re not the best investments these days from the long-term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward.

“The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents – #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic.” — Barack Obama, 3 July 2008

Now, liberals don’t mind lies. Liberals don’t mind bogus personal attacks. Liberals don’t mind slander. As long as it comes from the left. But truth #1 is that Barack Obama demonized George Bush and promised the American people that if we elected him:

Truth #2: Obama promised that he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term:

“Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office,” Obama said. “Now, this will not be easy. It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we’ve long neglected. But I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay, and that means taking responsibility right now, in this administration, for getting our spending under control.”

Fact (“logic”): Let’s consider that Obama rammed his stimulus through ($862 billion) and put it on Bush’s fiscal year budget tab even though Bush didn’t pass it and Republicans most certainly didn’t vote for it. Obama rammed a giant Omnibus bill through his Democrat Congress for another $410 billion that very few Republicans voted for. That’s also on the 2009 budget deficit. Obama of course blamed Bush for the entire $700 billion for TARP even though Obama voted for it and even though Bush gave Obama fully half of it ($350 billion) to spend in his own administration. Obama rammed through the federal takeover of GM and the $24 billion that went into that bailout. Even as Obama praises himself for it and exploits it to attack Republicans, in actual fact he attributes every single penny that paid for that bailout to Bush’s presidency even while he lies like a snake in misrepresenting its costs and benefits. That, for the record, if you add it up, is $1.646 trillion in Obama spending that Obama sneaks into the 2009 deficit which gets attributed to the last year of George Bush. And on top of that Obama calculated that the Iraq War would go on forever unless Obama ended it such that ending the war was “his savings” even though in fact Bush had negotiated the Iraq withdrawal before leaving office. Obama in citing the end of the Iraq War as “his savings” implicitly claims that he is saving $100 billion a year even though that’s an outright lie because Bush had already won the war and negotiated the withdrawal of forces. Obama deceitfully and dishonestly saddled all of that debt and bogus assumption onto Bush in order to fabricate a huge “Bush deficit” that Obama actually compiled and then conveniently made that “Bush deficit” his baseline for “Bush’s deficit”. Rather than the actual Bush record over eight years.

Obama does that because he can’t lie and fabricate Bush’s actual real deficits. As an example, the last budget deficit that was passed by George Bush under Republican leadership was for only $161 billion for Fiscal Year 2007.
The fact of the matter is that annual budget deficits under Bush and Republicans are now MONTHLY deficits under Obama and Democrats. The fact of the matter is that Democrats have not passed a budget for 1,180 days so far. The fact is that Obama doesn’t want you to think about that kind of leadership Bush demonstrated over his presidency; he wants you to think about “Bush’s debt” in 2009 with all of Obama’s very OWN vile spending packed onto it after HE took office in 2009. That just continues the trend of a president who has proven pathologically incapable of assuming responsibility for anything: it doesn’t matter if Obama did it, it’s “Bush’s fault.”

Fact (“logic”): “Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office.” We now know that Obama is a liar without shame. Because today the deficit is 189 percent higher than the one that Obama inherited when Obama promised the American people it would be 50 percent lower.

Fact (“logic”): That’s an increase of $5.287 trillion under Obama’s watch. Which aint anywhere near over yet even if he isn’t re-elected. This time last year the national debt was $14.3 trillion (July 28, 2011). At Obama’s rate of debt spiralling, the national debt will be $941 billion higher than it is right now by January 20, 2013. Which means the national debt will be $16.9 trillion by the time he’s gone even if he gets his ass kicked out of office the way he so richly deserves given his own lies and rhetoric.

I said $6 trillion in four years. And yes, Obama will have increased the debt by MORE THAN $6 trillion in just four years: from $10.6 to $16.9 trillion. And it might be even worse than that because this fool is clearly completely out of control. Assuming no surprises, that is $6.3 trillion in just four years compared to the $4.8 trillion over eight years that Democrats demonized Bush over.

Obama has been spending at a rate of at least 2.625 times the spending rate that Bush racked up over his eight years in office. As it is, only an utterly rabid nutjob would claim that Bush somehow spent more than Obama – but tragically we’re surrounded by rabid nutjobs. And that 2.625 times is actually if everything is rosy; because the fact of the matter is that Bush’s second four years were considerably worse spending-wise than his first four – and there is no reason that Obama – should he be re-elected – will repeat that history. In fact I believe the debt will explode like nothing we can possibly imagine if America is cursed with another four years of Obama. Consider the fact that ObamaCare ALONE has a $17 trillion funding gap. And the damn healthcare takeover hasn’t even been implemented yet so it can truly explode.

Democrats rammed through a Social Security boondoggle seventy years ago that has exploded. It didn’t matter that there was a far better private plan that a Democrat actually proposed; FDR wanted the Democrat to control America until it went bankrupt and he got his way. The same was true of Medicare and Medicaid; there were FAR better options, but Democrats wanted to socialize America and they got their way. Now people will die if these programs collapse, and mark my words they WILL collapse because of Democrats who demonize the issue while refusing to fix the problems or allow them to be fixed while the coming bankruptcy looms closer and closer.

Democrats are demon-possessed liars who try to make their fellow fools believe that George Bush bankrupted America. Bush’s spending isn’t a tenth of one percent of the debt bomb that Democrats have planted in the bowels of America. And those bombs that the Democrats so expertly planted are now beginning to explode and rip this country apart.

Some time back I started citing this little factoid published in the reliably liberal Los Angeles Times:

The staggering amount of unfunded debt stands to crowd out funding for many popular programs. Reform will take something sadly lacking in the Legislature: political courage.

The state of California’s real unfunded pension debt clocks in at more than $500 billion, nearly eight times greater than officially reported.

That’s the finding from a study released Monday by Stanford University’s public policy program, confirming a recent report with similar, stunning findings from Northwestern University and the University of Chicago.

The California State Legislature Senate consists of 25 Democrats and 15 Republicans and the Assembly consisting of 52 Democrats and 28 Republicans to go with a liberal governor nicknamed “Moonbeam.” Former RINO Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger tried and was broken by the Democrat majority and the unions and never dared to raise his hands against Democrats or their union masters again.

California will burn in hell because it is Democrat, which is another way of saying that it is half completely insane and half genuinely evil.

That pension bomb was planted by DEMOCRATS. These cockroaches have KILLEDCalifornia. Three big California cities have now declared bankruptcy because there is simply no way to pay Democrat Party-controlled unions their incredibly huge pensions. And Los Angeles is right behind them. Something between 1 in 5 and 1 in 4 California cities are now facing bankruptcy. City after city are now rolling over onto their bellies because the Democrat Party is the most corrupt entity in human history. And I say that because nothing short of the most evil and most dishonest and most corrupt party on earth could have succeeded in murdering the golden goose that was America. When you consider California, with all of its major global ports and all of its inherent economic advantages, only the most stupid people in history could possibly bankrupt it. But Democrats have succeeded wildly.

Unions are giving 92% of their contributions to Democrats. Democrats, in exchange and in quid pro quo, have given benefits and pensions to the unions that support them. And it is a vicious cycle that has continued and will continue until the American people hunt down every single Democrat and burn them alive for what they did to their country.

We’re most of the way through four years of God damn America. And liberals want more God damn America until there isn’t any America left for God to damn.

The Bible describes this mindset of being utterly determined to pursue wickedness and failure no matter what, just as it describes perfectly the coming hell that big government will produce in the coming Antichrist:

“A third of mankind was killed by these three plagues, by the fire and the smoke and the brimstone which proceeded out of their mouths. For the power of the horses is in their mouths and in their tails; for their tails are like serpents and have heads, and with them they do harm. The rest of mankind, who were not killed by these plagues, did not repent of the works of their hands, so as not to worship demons, and the idols of gold and of silver and of brass and of stone and of wood, which can neither see nor hear nor walk; and they did not repent of their murders nor of their sorceries nor of their immorality nor of their thefts” — Revelation 9:18-21

“Then the fifth angel poured out his bowl on the throne of the beast, and his kingdom became darkened; and they gnawed their tongues because of pain, and they blasphemed the God of heaven because of their pains and their sores; and they did not repent of their deeds.” — Revelation 16:10-11

You’d think that the instinct of self-preservation alone would make these people turn from their ideas, but no. Evil is a disease that consumes to the bone.

We’re seeing the same kind of demonic deception going on now in North Korea. This is a nation that is completely dark at night because socialism has so wildly failed it is beyond unreal, but they worship Dear Leader and when he dies they worship the son of Dear Leader:

And that is exactly the way that Democrats are. The only difference is the name of their “Dear Leader.” His abject failure is the same.

We’re getting just a little tiny taste of the hell that is coming. As the Antichrist leads the world (America most definitely included as Democrats gleefully worship the beast and take his mark) into hell and the people continue to refuse to repent no matter what happens, so also we now live in an America in which about half of the nation will follow Obama right into abject ruination.